Typically, an IP application is filed in a first jurisdiction (e.g., priority jurisdiction) and subsequently filed in second jurisdiction such that the application in the second jurisdiction claims priority to the priority jurisdiction. A professional in the priority jurisdiction (e.g., priority professional) prepares the IP application on his or her own computer and then transmits it over the Internet by email (or other telecommunication network) to a second professional for preparation and filing in the second jurisdiction.
In order for the second professional to file the application in the second jurisdiction, he or she is required to maintain a computer system (e.g., second computer system) and local area network to receive the IP application, as well as staff to prepare the application and related documents for filing. The second professional (or a staff member, etc.) re-enters the bibliographic information and received application data into the second computer system to prepare documents necessary to file the application in the second jurisdiction.
The current system has many disadvantages for the priority professional. For example, transmission of the application to the second professional is not secure unless both professionals have previously established end to end transmission security in advance. Establishing this security places technical burdens on both professionals—even assuming both sides use similar computing environments—that are generally outside the scope of their business focus of preparing IP applications.
Another concern for the priority professional is the security of the IP application while stored on the second professional's computer system. The priority professional has no knowledge or control over whether application documents are encrypted, backed up, or handled securely by the second professional.
Yet another concern for priority professional is the re-entry of bibliographical and application data by the second professional. The priority professional has no knowledge or control of whether any steps are taken to avoid errors. Perhaps more importantly, the re-entry of data into the second professional's computer system, as well as into documents for filing, creates unnecessary expense. This additional expense can be significant, especially when the priority professional seeks to file in multiple jurisdictions. In addition, in the event the information must be translated the priority professional has no knowledge or control of who is performing the translation or if any steps are being taken to avoid errors.
Ordinarily, IP professionals exchange IP applications for filing in each other's jurisdictions. In jurisdictions where the market is small or there are otherwise relatively few incoming international IP application filings, the cost to file outside the jurisdiction becomes more critical. Employing staff is often the highest cost facing an IP professional, so any system that reduces staff requirements generally lowers cost and therefore is likely to increase the volume of new filings from outside the jurisdiction.
The concerns of the priority professional are imposed on the second professional who needs staff not only to maintain the necessary computing resources to satisfy the requirements of the priority professional as well as possible governmental privacy mandates, but also for re-entering bibliographical and application information, and for drafting or receiving and revising the IP application (e.g., which may be a data file). In addition, at least a portion of the second jurisdiction professionals' staff may have to be bilingual and have multilingual computing resources in order to establish secure computing links and/or minimize data file translation and bibliographic information re-entering errors.
It is known, as described above, for intellectual property professionals to exchange, usually over the Internet, intellectual property applications for filing in other jurisdictions. It is also known to use network-based document management software, such as that provided by PerfectLaw® and identified in the information disclosure statement submitted with this application, the content of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. What is not known, however, is use by intellectual property professionals in different jurisdictions of the same network-based system with access to different portions of a database to streamline filing of IP applications in multiple jurisdictions without the problems and costs known in the prior art. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have an alternative system and method for automating the preparation of international intellectual property applications for filing.